Conjugal Relations & Confection of the Eucharist

[brianwalden]

There’s been a lot of discussion on another thread concerning whether or not contraception is intrinsically evil outside of marriage. I think I’ve stumbled upon a different perspective for looking at the question. Any thoughts?

The conjugal act and the Mass are very closely related, and not just in an analogical way. I think there’s truly a mystical connection between the communion of a husband and wife in the marital act and the Bridegroom and His Bride at Mass.

So let’s look at communion at Mass. It’s a sin to receive communion while in a state of mortal sin - the intent of such an act is similar to the intent of contraception in marriage. Christ is offering His entire self to you and you’re holding back, refusing to repent of your sins and give Him your entire self in return.

But what about the case of a Catholic who goes to a fake womynpriest mass. They obviously commit mortal sin by receiving communion at this invalid, heretical service. But if they attend this service with unconfessed sin on their soul, do they commit another sin by receiving the mere bread and wine while in a state of mortal sin? I don’t see how the act of receiving ordinary bread while in a state of mortal sin can be evil in itself. Now the intent of the person may certainly be evil - for example if they truly (yet mistakenly) believe that the fake womynpriest has the power to confect the Eucharist and they know they have unconfessed sin on their soul - but the act doesn’t seem to be evil by itself.

I think this highlights the two different ways people are looking at this question. If extramarital sex is an illicit yet still valid conjugal act (similar to a Latin priest using leavened bread at Mass), then contraception must be intrinsically evil in this case as it is with all conjugal relations. But if the lack of a husband and wife makes extramarital sex an invalid conjugal act (similar to a womynpriest attempting to confect the Blessed Sacrament), then it seems that for contraception to be sinful in that case it would depend on the intent of the person using it. I personally believe that in nearly all such cases contraception is used with evil intent, but I speculate it’s possible that it’s not in rare circumstances.

What do you guys think?

Please note: Church documents seem to only explicitly define contraception as intrinsically evil within the conjugal act within marriage. If the Magisterium has definitively and explicitly defined contraception as intrinsically evil outside of marriage, would a moderator please shut this thread down so as not to cause scandal. Otherwise, I’d ask commenters to disagree as much as you like but please do so without calling those who disagree with you on matters of legitimate speculation unfaithful Catholics.

 

[WatchingMedia]

No.
Sounds like you are working hard for justification of something that is sinful.
Go read your CCC, 2nd Edition prior to posting stuff like that.
Speculation ? ? ? - Who told you that you could speculate on matters of Faith and morals ? Where did you learn your Faith ?
See paragraph 2089. - Incredulity, heresy, schism.

 

[micahmike]

No.
Sounds like you are working hard for justification of something that is sinful.
Go read your CCC, 2nd Edition prior to posting stuff like that.
Speculation ? ? ? - Who told you that you could speculate on matters of Faith and morals ? Where did you learn your Faith ?
See paragraph 2089. - Incredulity, heresy, schism.

I thought the first post was fine and was hoping it would lead to an interesting, educational discussion. Your response is disapointing. Are you accusing the OP of Incredulity, heresy, apostasy or schism? If so please state your case clearly. Be explicit, as it isn’t clear to me that he is guilty of any of them. Where did you learn your faith?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

What of the fact that reception of a ‘protestant eucharist’ (which is OBVIOUSLY only bread and wine) is considered grave sin?

If it is grave sin to receive ‘bread and wine’ at a protestant service, it is grave sin to receive it at a ‘womynpriest’ service and for the same reason. . .disobedience to the Church in that reception of communion is considered to be an explicit ‘acceptance’ of the teachings of the group.

So yes, taking ‘bread and wine’ as an action which implies acceptance of a (false) teaching is grave sin.

If one is already in mortal sin, while one is not receiving an actual Eucharist in mortal sin, one is STILL commiting the grave sin of taking a ‘false’ Eucharist in defiance of Church teaching.

 

[brianwalden]

No.
Sounds like you are working hard for justification of something that is sinful.

Wow, first response. I am absolutely not trying to justify anything sinful. Any sexual activity outside of marriage is intrinsically evil. In order for someone to use contraception outside of marriage they’d have to already be committing a mortal sin, I’m in no way advocating for this. All I’m doing is speculating on the how contraception affects the mortal sin of fornication.
WatchingMedia;6719698:

Go read your CCC, 2nd Edition prior to posting stuff like that.

I did: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6709000&postcount=309

These forums are have moderators right? As I said in my earlier post, let them take this thread down if contraception has been explicitly and definitively defined as intrinsically evil outside of marriage. I don’t want to cause scandal, I won’t take it personally. If I’m wrong it’s by a fault of my own reasoning and not because I have any intent to undermine Church teaching.

Speculation ? ? ? - Who told you that you could speculate on matters of Faith and morals ? Where did you learn your Faith ?
See paragraph 2089. - Incredulity, heresy, schism.

Who told you that you coudn’t speculate on matters of faith and morals that haven’t yet been defined by the church. What’s your stance on how predestination works, do you have a speculation? Personally, my reason tells me to be more of a Molinist but my experience of my own sinfulness and how God keeps calling me back to repentance is pushing me toward the Thomist camp. Anyway, that’s beside the point, are you saying that these two great philosophers of the Church were sinning by speculating about a matter of the faith?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Canon 844 (c.671 in the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches)

1. Catholic ministers may licitly administer the sacraments to Catholic members of the Christian faithful only and, likewise, the latter may licitly receive the sacraments only from Catholic ministers with due regard for parts 2, 3, and 4 of this canon, and can. 861, part 2.
2. Whenever necessity requires or genuine spiritual advantage suggests, and provided that the danger of error or indifferentism is avoided, it is lawful for the faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister, to receive the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick from non-Catholic ministers in whose churches these sacraments are valid.

The point of course is that no Protestant Church has a valid Eucharist for Catholics. Orthodox Churches do, but not Protestant Churches.

Now, if it is illicit to receive sacraments from non-Catholic ministers, then it is sinful. Is it grave sin? Yes, it appears to be. The Eucharist is the source and summit of our lives as Catholic Christians, so a disobedience to the law for reception of the Eucharist such that one takes something ‘illicit’ (wrong) would be grave indeed.

It is not simply a question of taking ‘bread and wine’ rather than the body and blood of Christ, and then arguing that since it wasn’t a ‘real Eucharist’ then no sin was done.

For by taking that bread and wine, one is committing an illicit (and sinful) act by definition and as noted in the Code of Canon Law. Furthermore, since the taking of that illicit “Eucharist” would by its appearance indicate an intention of the taker to claim ‘communion’ and acceptance of beliefs of whatever ‘church’ he was taking it in, it gives a scandalous appearance and a disobedience in regard to one of the highest ‘actions’ (reception of the ‘true’ Eucharist) that a Catholic can do. So it is grave sin to take a ‘false’ Eucharist even though it is not the true Eucharist.

 

[brianwalden]

What of the fact that reception of a ‘protestant eucharist’ (which is OBVIOUSLY only bread and wine) is considered grave sin?

If it is grave sin to receive ‘bread and wine’ at a protestant service, it is grave sin to receive it at a ‘womynpriest’ service and for the same reason. . .disobedience to the Church in that reception of communion is considered to be an explicit ‘acceptance’ of the teachings of the group.

So yes, taking ‘bread and wine’ as an action which implies acceptance of a (false) teaching is grave sin.

I totally agree with you here. You’ve explained it much more explicitly than I did, but I clearly stated in the original post that by receiving communion at such a sham of a mass would be committing mortal sin.

If one is already in mortal sin, while one is not receiving an actual Eucharist in mortal sin, one is STILL commiting the grave sin of taking a ‘false’ Eucharist in defiance of Church teaching.

Agreed again. What I was asking was:

Event A) Catholic goes to fake womynpriest mass and receives communion. Definitely mortal sin.
Event B) Same catholic knows they some unrelated committed a mortal sin before the fake service even starts which they haven’t repented. Do they commit a mortal sin in addition to the sin of Event A by receiving the fake communion while in a state of mortal sin?

My guess at the answer is that such an act does not constitute a second mortal sin in and of itself. But the intent of the person may worsen the spiritual consequences of Event A (for example if they do so as a way of denying the Church’s teaching on sin and repentence). This is just my personal guess, I’m not claiming any authority behind it.

What are your thoughts about this situation? Is the relationship of extramarital sex to the conjugal act within marriage more akin to an illicit Mass or an invalid Mass? Or am I totally off base?

 

[momor]

After much struggling to define the premise the only thing I could come up with is this:

is contraception outside of marriage akin to receiving an invalid Eucharist in the state of mortal sin?

I can’t draw close enough parallels between all of the variables to be comfortable making any argument.

 

[micahmike]

Tantum, what are you going on about? The OP says

But what about the case of a Catholic who goes to a fake womynpriest mass. They obviously commit mortal sin by receiving communion at this invalid, heretical service.

 

[crazzeto]

Brian, I think you’re over thinking things… Attending a RC Woman Priests service would be sinful and depending upon your intent might excommunicate you. Using contraception is always sinful, though unless you view abortion as contraception (sadly many people do) it’s not likely to get you excommunicated.

In either case, a sinful act is always commited. The only question is, degree and ramifications. You can’t squint in any particular way and see that any of these acts, under any circomstance is not sinful.

Even if you view the Woman Priests communion as bread and wine (not body and blood). When you receive you give your full acent to the teachings and beliefs of that Church, this is why we answer “Amen” to “The Body/Blood of Christ”. Even if you say “well I just think it’s bread and wine”, you’re giving youf full assent to all the beliefs of the so called “Roman Catholic Woman Priests”.

 

[micahmike]

I’d like to call on anyone responding to this thread to read the OP carefully before responding Catholics are not free to recieve mock-communion from womyn “priests”. The OP knows this and says this.

 

[crazzeto]

I’d like to call on anyone responding to this thread to read the OP carefully before responding Catholics are not free to recieve mock-communion from womyn “priests”. The OP knows this and says this.

He seems to know this in some sense, it’s the point at which he starts saying “well what if …list circomstances… does that make receiving not a sin”… The part where he goes wrong is when he beileves there is any condition in which receiving would not be a sin. There are none.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

As I pointed out, Catholics receiving bread and wine in Protestant services (obviously not the Eucharist although presented as ‘a’ Eucharist) are committing grave sin.

The ‘Eucharist’ in a womympriest service is analogous to that of a protestant service. That is, it is presented as a Eucharist but is not a valid Eucharist.

Reception of such a Eucharist by a Catholic, whether the Catholic is in a state of mortal sin otherwise, is grave sin.

It does not matter that it is not a valid Eucharist (reception of a valid Eucharist in a state of mortal sin is compounding the sin).

Reception of an invalid Eucharist is a grave sin. So reception of that invalid Eucharist, on top of ‘already committed’ mortal sin is likewise a compounding of that sin.

 

[brianwalden]

He seems to know this in some sense, it’s the point at which he starts saying “well what if …list circomstances… does that make receiving not a sin”… The part where he goes wrong is when he beileves there is any condition in which receiving would not be a sin. There are none.

Sorry, I think my language might have been confusing because the two sins I’m attempting to describe are worded so similarly. I’ll try to simplify it.

Here are two statements that I think every Catholic agrees with:
Statement A) It’s a mortal sin for a Catholic to receive communion outside of the Catholic Church*
Statement B) It’s a mortal sin for a Catholic to receive the Eucharist while in a state of mortal sin

So if a Catholic knowingly receives communion at a fake womynpriest mass they definitely commit the sin described in Statement A, right? But do they commit a second sin, the sin described in statement B?

• I think there might possibly be an exception in an emergency when say only an Orthodox priest is available or something like that, but I don’t think the extreme cases apply here.

 

[momor]

He seems to know this in some sense, it’s the point at which he starts saying “well what if …list circomstances… does that make receiving not a sin”… The part where he goes wrong is when he beileves there is any condition in which receiving would not be a sin. There are none.

The lack of sin is not the issue the question is trying to get at, it is the gravity of the sin. Is the sin of contraception during fornication as grave as the sin of contraception during marriage?

While both are sinful, would you equate the following scenarios as having the same gravity of sin?

1. Receiving the Real Presence in the state of mortal sin
2. Receiving a mock eucharist in the state of mortal sin

Basically saying marriage is like the Real Presence and fornication is like a mock eucharist. Therefore, are the following scenarios different in the gravity of sin (not that they are sinless)?

1. Contraception during marriage, a valid sacramental union
2. Contraception outside of marriage, in which God is not a third person in the relationship.

 

[crazzeto]

Sorry, I think my language might have been confusing because the two sins I’m attempting to describe are worded so similarly. I’ll try to simplify it.

Here are two statements that I think every Catholic agrees with:
Statement A) It’s a mortal sin for a Catholic to receive communion outside of the Catholic Church*
Statement B) It’s a mortal sin for a Catholic to receive the Eucharist while in a state of mortal sin

So if a Catholic knowingly receives communion at a fake womynpriest mass they definitely commit the sin described in Statement A, right? But do they commit a second sin, the sin described in statement B?

• I think there might possibly be an exception in an emergency when say only an Orthodox priest is available or something like that, but I don’t think the extreme cases apply here.

It’s not your language, it’s the reasoning which you present wwhich is flawed. You seem to believe that there is any case in which receiving is not a grave sin. You seem to believe that receiving the woman priests “communion” is not a sin when you are already in a state of mortal sin anyway. No, as pointed out all you’re doing is compounding sins and putting your soul in a worse disposition.

There is aboslutely no case in which you may receive a woman priests “communion”, ever, and it not be a grave sin.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Brian, here is what I think the confusion is over.

No, the person does not commit a mortal sin of receiving the Eucharist while in a state of mortal sin IF the Eucharist is not a valid Eucharist.

HOWEVER (with the exception of Orthodox communion possibly) the person receiving an INVALID, ILLICIT Eucharist is guilty of mortal sin. The culpability may be less if the patient did not ‘know’ (although there is little excuse for any adult Catholic not being aware of this!) but of course, that is the case for any mortal sin. It is still a mortal sin in and of itself.

So really what you have is a three-fer.

A. Person in mortal sin coming into a Mass and/or service.
B. If Catholic Mass and./or valid Eucharist and reception in mortal sin, compounding or ‘second’ mortal sin by reception.
C. If in protestant service or non-Catholic service and receiving of invalid Eucharist, compounding or second mortal sin by reception with possible mitigation if not ‘known’ but still mortally sinful in and of itself.

 

[brianwalden]

Brian, here is what I think the confusion is over.

No, the person does not commit a mortal sin of receiving the Eucharist while in a state of mortal sin IF the Eucharist is not a valid Eucharist.

This is my thought as well (although I think there’s room for legitimate disagreement), it doesn’t seem to be a sin in and of itself.

HOWEVER (with the exception of Orthodox communion possibly) the person receiving an INVALID, ILLICIT Eucharist is guilty of mortal sin. The culpability may be less if the patient did not ‘know’ (although there is little excuse for any adult Catholic not being aware of this!) but of course, that is the case for any mortal sin. It is still a mortal sin in and of itself.

Right, we’re assuming the person is culpable for their actions.

So really what you have is a three-fer.

A. Person in mortal sin coming into a Mass and/or service.
B. If Catholic Mass and./or valid Eucharist and reception in mortal sin, compounding or ‘second’ mortal sin by reception.
C. If in protestant service or non-Catholic service and receiving of invalid Eucharist, compounding or second mortal sin by reception with possible mitigation if not ‘known’ but still mortally sinful in and of itself.

Let me put your A, B and C in chronological order to highlight what I’m getting at:

A. John Catholic skips Mass on Sunday and remains unrepentant for it. This is sin number 1.
B. The next Sunday John receives communion at a valid Mass. This is sin number 2.
C1. The Sunday after that John receives communion at non-Catholic service with an invalid Eucharist. This is sin number 3.
C2. John receives this invalid Eucharist while in a state of mortal sin. Is this sin number 4?

It seems to me from your comments above that you would not consider that a 4th sin in and of itself. Am I reading you right?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

This is my thought as well (although I think there’s room for legitimate disagreement), it doesn’t seem to be a sin in and of itself.

Right, we’re assuming the person is culpable for their actions.

Let me put your A, B and C in chronological order to highlight what I’m getting at:

A. John Catholic skips Mass on Sunday and remains unrepentant for it. This is sin number 1. Yes.
B. The next Sunday John receives communion at a valid Mass. This is sin number 2. yes
C1. The Sunday after that John receives communion at non-Catholic service with an invalid Eucharist. This is sin number 3. yes.
C2. John receives this invalid Eucharist while in a state of mortal sin. Is this sin number 4?

It seems to me from your comments above that you would not consider that a 4th sin in and of itself. Am I reading you right?

Ah. I see what you are saying.

While the Catholic receiving a valid Eucharist in a state of mortal sin is making an ‘additional’ sin, the Catholic receiving an invalid Eucharist is a slightly different (but not too different) case.

The thing is, the Catholic who receives a valid Eucharist ‘on top of mortal sin’ sins ‘in addition’.

IF the Catholic were not in mortal sin and received a valid Eucharist, there would be no sin at all.

Whereas, if the Catholic goes in to a nonCatholic service and takes an invalid Eucharist, that reception is itself a mortal sin. If the Catholic had mortal sin on his soul before taking that invalid Eucharist, he is still ‘adding’ to the mortal sin by reception of an invalid Eucharist.

So even though taking an invalid Eucharist is not directly tied to the reception the way that taking a VALID Eucharist on top of mortal sin is, if the person were in mortal sin prior to taking an invalid Eucharist, there is still an ‘addition’ of mortal sin.

If the person came to the invalid Eucharist in a state of grace somehow, and then took the invalid Eucharist, it is just the one ‘mortal sin.’

But if he came in to the service, and in doing so was saying to himself, “bah humbug to Catholicism, I’m going to take the Eucharist here no matter what they say”. . that in itself is mortal sin. Even if he never took that Eucharist afterward, the intent here is to sin mortally.

 

[brianwalden]

A. John Catholic skips Mass on Sunday and remains unrepentant for it. This is sin number 1.
B. The next Sunday John receives communion at a valid Mass. This is sin number 2.
C1. The Sunday after that John receives communion at non-Catholic service with an invalid Eucharist. This is sin number 3.
C2. John receives this invalid Eucharist while in a state of mortal sin. Is this sin number 4?

I’m not sure I understand. Are you saying that statement C2 is indeed a 4th sin. Or are you saying that it’s not a separate sin in it’s own right, but it makes the spiritual damage done by C1 worse?